分类:
首先检查结论事件是否蕴含前提事件(前提是否为结论的必要条件),如不蕴含,则Logical gap即为答案。
如果蕴含,则答案选项有两种可能:
1、指出结论蕴含的其他事件没有出现:
例子:
前提事件:There are several winemakers producing wine to which no sulfites are added
结论事件:Those who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfites can drink these wines
without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites
提问Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion above?
(A) Sulfites occur naturally in most wine.
(B) The sulfites that can produce an allergic reaction are also commonly found in beverages other
than wine.
(C) Wines without added sulfites tend to be at least moderately expensive.
(D) Apart from sulfites, there are other substances commonly present in wine that can trigger
allergic reactions.
(E) Wine without added sulfites sometimes becomes undrinkable even before the wine is sold to
consumers.
疑问:对于A的解释,书中“本选项指出了另一个结论蕴含的事件不存在,保留”
其实没有完全明白“另一个结论蕴含的事件”指的是什么?如果是“亚硝酸盐在大部分酒中是存在的这个”,这个为什么就成了结论蕴含的事件不存在?还请老师解答。
这题我自己做也做对了,但是我的理由是:亚硝酸盐既然在大部分酒中是存在的,即使喝没有单独添加亚硝酸盐的酒,依然会过敏。
2、指出前提前提也能被和结论无关的另一个事件蕴含。
前提事件:Last year, one candidate produced a half-hour-long advertisement. At the beginning of
the half-hour slot a substantial portion of the viewing public had tuned in to that station.
结论事件Clearly, then, many more people are interested in lengthy televised political messages
than was previously thought.
提问:Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) The candidate who produced the half-hour-long advertisement did not win elec-tion at the polls.
(B) The half-hour-long advertisement was watched by other candidates before it was broadcast.
(C) The half-hour-long advertisement was aired during a time slot normally taken by one of the
most popular prime-time shows.
(D) Most short political advertisements are aired during a wide range of programs in order to reach
a broad spectrum of viewers.
(E) In general a regular-length television program that features debate about cur-rent political
issues depends for its appeal on the personal qualities of the pro-gram’s moderator.
本例子的疑问:
C并不是能够蕴含前提事件的一个结论,而是同前提并列的一个前提。我选C的原因是,C其实造成了人们以为长广告会有好的收视率的一个错觉,所以削弱的前提事件。只是觉得例子和解题思路,我没有完全对上,还希望老师能够解答。
第一题:1.你的理由那个有点不妥,题目中的过敏人没有添加S的酒,就是酒里完全没有S,无论是自然产生还是人为添加。所以有自然产生S的酒并不是过敏人会去喝的酒,不在题目讨论范围内。那么就不能说因为有些酒本来就有S,就算人为没加S,过敏人还是会过敏,本身有S的酒不在讨论范围
2.关于A选项:其实大部分酒会自然产生S,就说明有的就本身就是没有S。这些本身没有S的酒,过敏人喝了就不会过敏。这个就是结论蕴含的另外一个事件,没有过敏可以是(1)喝了没有人为添加S的酒,或者是(2)酒本身就没有S。那么(2)就是结论所蕴含的另外一个前提,所以这就对(1)推出结论造成了削弱
手动点赞哈哈哈
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
第二题:你的想法完全基本上是对的,但C不是并列的前提,而是另一个结论
这题用的是第二个方法,就是还有其他不同的结论可以包含该题的前提。前提是很多人调到了那个台,结论是(1)很多人喜欢看长广告。另一个结论是:(2)大家调台不是来看广告的,而是看受欢迎的节目的。题目中是结论(1)蕴含前提,C给出的结论(2)同样也可以蕴含前提。所以就是前提发生时,不一定只能得出结论(1)还能得出结论(2),那么结论(2)的存在就削弱了前提对结论(1)的推理